Here's an interesting read from our local news rag. Seems some people think that just because there's a few bad apples that the office of sheriff should be eliminated and taken over by the local gov't.
Anyone see what the problem with this could be?
[url=http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/0702/14sheriffs.html]Sheriff[/url]

In a 2000 statewide referendum, elected sheriffs in Connecticut's six counties were eliminated. Providing court security and serving legal papers was put under the control of the state judicial department.
"This job is much better performed by civil service career law enforcement types," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, who championed the elimination of the sheriffs. But, he added, "Connecticut is a lot different from Georgia."

Definitely an attack on the state's constitution.
I support the office of sheriff. [beer] That does not mean that I always support the person holding that office. [:\] Not withstanding We The People, the sheriff is our first and only line of defence against crime. [^]
When the article states,
"County sheriffs have sweeping powers, ensured to them by the state Constitution -- the only people they report to are the voters, and that's just once every four years." [v]
The part about once every 4 years is false. [:(!] As an elected official, the sheriff is accountable to the people everyday. This is much more than can be said for the non-elected LEO's, who are accountable to the non-elected Chief of Police, who is accountable to the perhaps non-elected City Administrator. [dracula]
Let's give a cheer for the Sheriff! [beer] [bounce]

They could do away with the whole NY sheriff's Dept. They are a bunch of A-Holes..This is no disrespect to the LEO's. I could tell you stories of corruption. About seizure of Houses, Cars, Boats of people that didn't pay $$$$$$. How they go after someone if the person isn't connected and leave those who are alone.
I was asked to testify in a case awhile back that put a sheriff away for allowing someone to keep property for giving them sex. All the ones except 2, that I met from the case. One works in Washington DC and the other went to the Justice Dept.

Originally Posted By edpmedic:
They could do away with the whole NY sheriff's Dept. They are a bunch of A-Holes..This is no disrespect to the LEO's. I could tell you stories of corruption. About seizure of Houses, Cars, Boats of people that didn't pay $$$$$$. How they go after someone if the person isn't connected and leave those who are alone.
I was asked to testify in a case awhile back that put a sheriff away for allowing someone to keep property for giving them sex. All the ones except 2, that I met from the case. One works in Washington DC and the other went to the Justice Dept.

View Quote

Theoretically, if the janitor at an intel chip fab were to get caught smoking weed in a closet at work, the entire factory could be confiscated. Pretty fucked up eh? The fedcoats only use those laws angaist people without the money/power to take revenge though.

Originally Posted By anti-gov-tinfoil-man:
Theoretically, if the janitor at an intel chip fab were to get caught smoking weed in a closet at work, the entire factory could be confiscated. Pretty fucked up eh? The fedcoats only use those laws angaist people without the money/power to take revenge though.

View Quote

Uh, theoretically not at all. Entirely incorrect. For property to be seized (forfeited in civil court) it has to:
1) Be used in the commission of a serious offense (generally a major felony of some degree, but will vary from state to state); or
2) Be the proceeds from illegal activity, and this has to be proven in court.
In both cases, there is a hearing, which can be appealed. The standard is "the preponderance of evidence," pretty standard for civil actions. I will give two examples:
In #1, a bad guy drives his (paid for, no liens) car to a liquor store, which he robs. His car is subject to forfeiture (along with the pistol he pointed at the clerk) to the state, which may sell the items or re-use them.
In #2 (a real-life, recent one), a bad guy is selling large quantities of drugs, which he transported in his car (as evidenced by residue inside of the car and surveillance). Subpoenaed and seized records showed that he only legally made about $4K this year, and made about $6K in house payments, and paid $3.5K for the car. He also had $3K in cash when arrested, and was moving about 50 pounds a week. In this case, there is good reason to believe that the car (and the cash) were proceeds from his illegal activity, selling drugs, and all were seized. But not the house; while it could be argued that his house was part of the illegal activity, and drug proceeds paid for at least part of it, houses are (rightfully so) hard to seize, and there were still substantial liens on it.
Your Intel scenario would only work if Intel knew he was selling large quantities of drugs (enough to be a felony), didn't do anything about it, and the janitor was helping Intel make payments on the building's mortgage or was giving the CEo a "cut" of his profits, with the knowledge of other senior members of the company's staff, and even then it would be really tough.
Arguments against something (asset forfeiture) don't work if your statements aren't backed by facts.